Obama will loose

BenjAii · 16-09-2008 6:52pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would have to say I think that is wrong. Conservative or right-wing in a British context equates with the Tory Party and is not the universal smear you suggest.

Most people would take "far-right" in a British context to mean the BNP.

Sad as it may be to you Donegal, the majority of people in Britain aren't right-wing. The majority of voters consistently support Labour & The Liberal Democrats.

However just because the majority of people don't agree with your views, doesn't mean they are all wrong and permanently out to get you.

BoatMad · 16-09-2008 7:35pm

Well after all that I think I'll hold to my views

The best thing Obama could do now is put hillary on the ticket. Thats also gets Bill all fired up and hes a vote getter

Manic Moran · 16-09-2008 7:35pm

The problem with the fingerpointing at racism and vote-rigging and any other non-upstanding potential reasons at an Obama defeat is that the vote-rigging hasn't yet taken effect, and the racism argument does not support the recent figures. Some time ago, I would have been astounded at a Democrat loss. Obama had a massive lead. Now, he's at best tied. There are several race-related possibilities to this.

1) Of late, pollsters have been calling a lot more racists. Not statistically likely.

2) In the last few months, a bunch of people have become racist. Given the size of the swing, I don't see this as being overly likely.

3) In the last few months, a bunch of people who have always been racist but lied about it have decided to be honest. See point number 2.

4) The Democrats have managed to take a near certain victory, with a good lead, and completely ballsed it up without any requirement for racism to take effect.

My money's on item #4. Of course, it's a lot easier to blame the opposition.

NTM

irish_bob · 16-09-2008 9:32pm

dave2pvd wrote: »

I work amongst the Far Right, so let me kick this little gem off:

Far right believes creation theory should be taught in schools at the same time as evolution 'theory'
Far right has a tendency to home school kids
Far right fails miserably when it comes to sex-ed
Far right has no tolerance for abortion
Far right insists on 10 commandments in court houses
Far right oppose civil union for gays and favor a constitutional amendment to back this up
Far right would probably prefer 'one nation under Jesus' instead of 'one nation under God'
Far right doesn't drink alcohol

Generalizing and stereotyping a bit; there are exceptions to the above, etc.

thats a group known as the christian right your talking about , think ned flanders , that french politician le pen , i would class him as being far right

Zuiderzee · 16-09-2008 9:39pm

alastair wrote: »

You forgot the Republic of Alaska

Zuiderzee · 16-09-2008 9:41pm

BoatMad wrote: »

Well after all that I think I'll hold to my views

The best thing Obama could do now is put hillary on the ticket. Thats also gets Bill all fired up and hes a vote getter

Put Clinton in after to reform Medicare

Overheal · 16-09-2008 10:34pm

I dont like the social healthcare plan. I mean, just look at Ireland's. Its a joke. How many more people would have private healthcare if there were no social alternative? Then those people would actually get serviced.

dave2pvd · 16-09-2008 11:21pm

irish_bob wrote: »

thats a group known as the christian right your talking about , think ned flanders , that french politician le pen , i would class him as being far right

In America (where I'm sitting),

Christian Right = Far Right

It ain't France. It certainly isn't Germany.

Manic Moran · 17-09-2008 8:49am

Overheal wrote: »

Thats passed through congress at least once or twice and its unconstitutional, considering the first 4 commandments (in Catholicism):

It's not quite as simple as that. I did a quick bit of hunting around when I saw the Ten Commandments at the Capitol Building in Austin, as I had thought it not allowed. Turns out that the Supreme Court has upheld that particular monument, given that it is a monument on the grounds, and not a framed document on the wall of a courthouse. You want to take a look at the exact texts of the submitted Congressional legislation. At least one of them wouldn't have passed muster, not so sure about the others though.

NTM

Hobbes · 17-09-2008 8:54am

Overheal wrote: »

I dont like the social healthcare plan. I mean, just look at Ireland's. Its a joke.

Depends on what you define as a joke. US private healthcare. Now that is a joke (unless your paying serious money). Broke my arm there and despite good insurance it took hours just to see someone who would check my insurance and even longer to get my arm fixed up. Came to around $250 (which I was double billed on and chasing insurance/debt companies to get it sorted). Ireland it is like 50 euros and no hassle after that.

Also a lot of people don't realise that you pay social welfare that you can claim it back. It isn't only for your freebies. There is a misconception that you only can get it back if your not working or defined as a freeloader.

Irelands healthcare system has a long way to go, but it is no way near the disaster the US has for a healthcare system.

Ludo · 17-09-2008 12:51pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

4) The Democrats have managed to take a near certain victory, with a good lead, and completely ballsed it up without any requirement for racism to take effect.

My money's on item #4. Of course, it's a lot easier to blame the opposition.

NTM

You forgot the reason number 5 there...the one I think is the actual cause...Palin.

God how is that woman even involved in this? At the risk of upsetting a few people...if McCain wins then it will prove to me that that indeed there is an extraordinarily high percentage of dumb people in the USA. She can see Russia...give me a break. She has been lying through her teeth (bridge to nowhere, earmarks, etc) and everyone seems to love her coz she is "pretty".

I wouldn't mind if McCain won based on policies but they are completely irrelevant. His own campaign manager boasts about how they have managed to keep the election totally away from policies and it is working for them.

molloyjh · 17-09-2008 2:58pm

Ludo wrote: »

His own campaign manager boasts about how they have managed to keep the election totally away from policies and it is working for them.

Thats the scariest thing of all. They openly admitted at the start of their campaign that it would be on the issues, and yet they are still more than just in the running! What is wrong with a country that votes for people based on how well they can slag off the other party rather than what their position is on issues that actually matter!?

As for the polls and who will win, they will all admit over there that the polls vary over time depending on a number of things and that the trick isn't to be ahead now. In fact they'll all say the poll at the moment doesn't matter at all. The trick is to get the crest of a wave going into election day, and that this isn't always in their control so there is an element of luck to it aswell.

The whole thing over there is a circus - I'm more convinced of that now than ever after spending the last 2 weeks in the States and following the interviews and ads etc.

snow scorpion · 17-09-2008 6:33pm

Ludo wrote: »

God how is that woman even involved in this? At the risk of upsetting a few people...if McCain wins then it will prove to me that that indeed there is an extraordinarily high percentage of dumb people in the USA.

Isn't this point equally valid:

God how is Obama even involved in this? At the risk of upsetting a few people...if Obama wins then it will prove to me that that indeed there is an extraordinarily high percentage of dumb people in the USA.

How is it the left keeps missing the glaringly obvious point: as suspect a candidate as Palin is, Obama is ten times more suspect.

She has far more experience as a chief executive than Obama does. How does the left not see this?

Overheal · 17-09-2008 6:56pm

They dont see it because hollywood doesnt allow it. Thats why you have Oprah and Matt Damon speaking out for Obama. Its the same kind of behavior you might find in Tom Cruise if Stephen Colbert's financial advisor (Gorlock) ran for president. "He is the One!" Give me a break.

Yes Palin is a Right Wing little **** but what does that make Obama? He's still far left.

Hobbes · 17-09-2008 7:01pm

snow scorpion wrote: »

How is it the left keeps missing the glaringly obvious point: as suspect a candidate as Palin is, Obama is ten times more suspect.

No one has pointed out exactly why. Palin "I can see russia from my house" and McCain "economy is strong to a total crisis in under 24 hours" . I don't blame people who support the Republican party for selecting such an idiot as the primary repub. Can you not pick someone else at this point?

Ludo · 17-09-2008 7:05pm

Well besides having better policies, Obama is a leader. He is highly intelligent He inspires. I know that means nothing to some people but in these times I believe an intelligent inspiring person with good policies can actually do some good.

Palin is nothing like that. Managing a town of 5000 (as it was then)...gosh I could do that myself...doesn't mean I am qualified to be president.

Don't get me wrong. I like McCain and as I have said before I wouldn't have minded his winning up to early this year when he suddenly turned into a "real" republican. He changed his mind on loads of policies as they didn't suit him anymore.

Overheal · 17-09-2008 7:06pm

Hobbes wrote: »

Can you not pick someone else at this point?

Nope, youve got The idots from Column A, The idiots from Column B, and the independent/libertarian candidates.

Ludo · 17-09-2008 7:07pm

snow scorpion wrote: »

How is it the left keeps missing the glaringly obvious point: as suspect a candidate as Palin is, Obama is ten times more suspect.

She has far more experience as a chief executive than Obama does. How does the left not see this?

erm...McCain has no executive experience either. Do I hear you saying Palin is more qualified than McCain and would make a better president than either of the actual candidates???

Lirange · 17-09-2008 8:19pm

Overheal wrote: »

Yes Palin is a Right Wing little **** but what does that make Obama? He's still far left.

What makes Obama "far left" overheal? Point out something from his platform.

snow scorpion · 17-09-2008 8:53pm

Ludo wrote: »

erm...McCain has no executive experience either. Do I hear you saying Palin is more qualified than McCain and would make a better president than either of the actual candidates???

Yes.

Ludo · 17-09-2008 9:04pm

snow scorpion wrote: »

Yes.

LMFAO

:D

I am assuming you are joking. I hope you are joking...oh god!!!

snow scorpion · 17-09-2008 9:10pm

Ludo wrote: »

LMFAO :D

I am assuming you are joking. I hope you are joking...oh god!!!

I'm happy you're happy... but I am serious.

Of the four principal players in this election, only one of them would have any clue what to do should they end up sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office.

(And it's not one of the three Senators.)

Ludo · 17-09-2008 9:19pm

:eek:

Words fail me.

Lirange · 17-09-2008 9:23pm

snow scorpion wrote: »

Yes.

She knows nowt about foreign policy. Her strange gaffe on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac doesn't augur well either.

There's strengths and weaknesses when assessing the experience of a Senator vs. a Governor. While a Gov does have executive experience they do not grapple with national issues. Only state issues. Obama is on the Senate foreign relations committee. Senators address budgetary issues on a federal level. Senators are familiar with regulatory policy on a federal level. They understand federal issues much more than an executive with a much narrower constituency. That's a simple fact. So each has their strengths and weaknesses.

Of course there's much more that goes into this than experience. History has shown many with years of experience are gargantuan ****-ups while raw politicians can be more capable. If it was just on experience why not former Alabama governor George Wallace in 1964?

You have to take into consideration factors such as how informed they are, how competent they are, and their positions on issues. On all of those counts (clearly on the first two, third depends on your politics) Obama is leagues ahead of McCain and light years beyond Mrs. Barracuda.

GuanYin · 17-09-2008 9:35pm

McCain is NOT far right. Palin is. Hopefully McCain is running a conservative campaign but won't be a conservative president if he is elected.

is_that_so · 17-09-2008 10:43pm

Ludo wrote: »

Well besides having better policies, Obama is a leader. He is highly intelligent He inspires. I know that means nothing to some people but in these times I believe an intelligent inspiring person with good policies can actually do some good.

Palin is nothing like that. Managing a town of 5000 (as it was then)...gosh I could do that myself...doesn't mean I am qualified to be president.

Don't get me wrong. I like McCain and as I have said before I wouldn't have minded his winning up to early this year when he suddenly turned into a "real" republican. He changed his mind on loads of policies as they didn't suit him anymore.

Having seen the two of them "respond" to the present crisis I would be even less optimistic than I had been previously. Not a single answer of any type between them. While Obama appears to have the best policies neither he nor McCain seem to have a notion how to address the current meltdown. If the likes of Soros and others are to be believed this thing will be with us for another 18 months or so. That I would suggest trumps any policies beyond getting out of it.

Overheal · 17-09-2008 11:43pm

Lirange wrote: »

She knows nowt about foreign policy.

True but he didnt pick her for her foreign policy experience. Am I the only one that realised she was trying to jest when she talked about being next to Russia? Somehow it seems a little more lighthearted than "No, I do not have foreign policy experience." To which, she does not. and she knows that. Gawd.

GuanYin · 18-09-2008 12:02am

Overheal wrote: »

True but he didnt pick her for her foreign policy experience. Am I the only one that realised she was trying to jest when she talked about being next to Russia? Somehow it seems a little more lighthearted than "No, I do not have foreign policy experience." To which, she does not. and she knows that. Gawd.

She isn't the one who talked about being next to Russia, it was another republican and then Laura Bush, both in live Fox News interviews.

So you would be the only one who realized she was trying to jest in so far as you're the only one who is attributing the source of the comments to her and defending her for doing something that you think happened but never actually did.

It kinda shows a bit of an inherent bias when you make stuff up.

Lirange · 18-09-2008 12:59am

Overheal wrote: »

True but he didnt pick her for her foreign policy experience.

Obviously.

Given that she could potentially become president if something happens to the fossil it's a major drawback. Sans experience it would be preferable to have someone at least engaged on global events. Clearly she's not.

Overheal wrote: »

Am I the only one that realised she was trying to jest when she talked about being next to Russia? Somehow it seems a little more lighthearted than "No, I do not have foreign policy experience." To which, she does not. and she knows that. Gawd.

Is this intended to make us feel better about the prospect of President Palin?

Overheal · 18-09-2008 2:04am

No, its supposed to get you to be silent about a really lame argument regarding russia. pick something with more substance to it - like the gods war thing.

Obama will loose

Comments